pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> one study. Still, I see it very differently.
> The higher AGE levels in this study are correlated
> with fruits and honey, not junk food.

Not really. Fruit+veg+honey+grains intake (and it does NOT mention anywhere that they ate no processed sugars), versus standard meat eaters. Does this mean the meat eaters are healthier? Why don't you go eat meat then? Who funded the study? It seems very pro-meat trying to imply that a vegetarian diet is inherently less healthy because of these AGEs. They also didn't attempt to assert that the AGE levels shown in the vegetarians were in an at-risk range. Please. You don't know that your diet doesn't generate comparable amounts of AGEs. Until a study comes out comparing your diet to 80/10/10 you're making a huge mistake assuming that it's so terrible based on connecting the dots from a few shady studies.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Twenty percent older from age doesn't translate
> into 20 percent greater AGE exposure.

I didn't say that it did necessarily, but how do you know that to be true? BTW the word isn't 'exposure', it's 'presence'.


> real question is what affect to fruits which are
> high sugar such as bananas and grapes do to
> circulating insulin and glucose relative to
> someone who was eating a raw vegan diet with a
> greater distribution of foods across nuts and
> seeds, legumes, fruits, vegetables and sprouted
> grains. I see a lower glycemic load in the latter
> which when accompanied with a higher nutrient load
> should be less risky in terms of both AGE
> formation and cancer etiology.

Now you're saying fruit causes cancer too? WOAH where's the proof?


> I guess I still don't buy the false premise of
> high fruit or high fat. Those aren't the only
> choices. Certainly neither Dr. Furhman or most
> CR advocates prescribe either one of those. I
> wouldn't characterize the Hippocrates Health
> Institute Diet or what Brian Clement proposes as
> either high fat or high fruit.

I don't know how much fat Furhman eats, but I know he's definitely not anti-fruit. I don't know exactly what Brian Clement eats, but I have heard the stuff served at Hippocrates can be very high fat. And I've heard that he eats cooked grains. We can't get enough calories from wheatgrass and sprouts. He certainly is anti-fruit.


> Regarding a fat percentage, I don't believe in one
> percentage but rather a range. I don't think
> there is anything magical about 10 percent fat
> content, notwithstanding you don't have be high
> fruit to be low fat. Rather, the mass of healthy
> lipids and essential fatty acids can be low or
> moderate but most likely not high.

I just wish you'd post your fat% and a sample day. Until we know what % fat you're eating, no one knows exactly what you're recommending. Eating low glycemic fruits and high amounts of vegetables and greens are certainly perfectly in-line with 80/10/10, what we're really talking about here is FAT. How much of it are you eating?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2009 07:19PM by rawpreston.

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Regarding fruits not being high glycemic, I guess
> relative to processed foods that's true. But the
> real question is what affect to fruits which are
> high sugar such as bananas and grapes do to
> circulating insulin and glucose relative to
> someone who was eating a raw vegan diet with a
> greater distribution of foods across nuts and
> seeds, legumes, fruits, vegetables and sprouted
> grains. I see a lower glycemic load in the latter
> which when accompanied with a higher nutrient load
> should be less risky in terms of both AGE
> formation and cancer etiology.

Ok I think I understand things now. Your fear of AGEs has led you to fear excessive fruit, and my fear of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, cognitive disorders, candida, and low energy (there are many studies for all of these) has led me to fear excessive fat. We can agree to disagree. I'm sure you've at least tried a low fat raw vegan plan for a month and concluded it wasn't for you.

I think that the first thing the body does when it has all the fruit it wants is that it sheds every last bit of extra weight it has because it knows there is food aplenty all around. Why put stuff away for a rainy day when it's all around?! If it has to go looking around for unsalted, unprocessed, hard-to-find nuts and digging up tubers... it thinks it's in a bit of trouble.

Then it can just take in the fruit and use it for energy straightaway. All this converting stuff from fat into energy and all of that is hard on the body. This is why protein is known as a "dirty fuel".

Fruit is fast and clean. Even with vegetables there is a certain amount of breakdown that has to take place and the body is not getting what it really wants.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2009 08:24PM by SuperInfinity.

I'm interesting in some sample days of Pborst's eating as well, but I don't think we'll get it.

Pretty much when people start quoting Clement or Fuhrman the diet followed is a cooked vegan diet with a raw component.

rawpreston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > one study. Still, I see it very differently.
> > The higher AGE levels in this study are
> correlated
> > with fruits and honey, not junk food.
>
> Not really. Fruit+veg+honey+grains intake (and it
> does NOT mention anywhere that they ate no
> processed sugars), versus standard meat eaters.
> Does this mean the meat eaters are healthier? Why
> don't you go eat meat then? Who funded the
> study? It seems very pro-meat trying to imply
> that a vegetarian diet is inherently less healthy
> because of these AGEs. They also didn't attempt
> to assert that the AGE levels shown in the
> vegetarians were in an at-risk range. Please.
> You don't know that your diet doesn't generate
> comparable amounts of AGEs. Until a study comes
> out comparing your diet to 80/10/10 you're making
> a huge mistake assuming that it's so terrible
> based on connecting the dots from a few shady
> studies.


I think you are overstating the uncertainty associated with comparisons. Protein intake was higher among the omnivores; fruit & honey ergo fructose content was higher among the vegetarians. The original authors postulated originally that AGE would be lower in vegetarians due to consuming lower temperatures. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]. And they work for that bastion of beef lovers in Bratislava, the Institute of Preventative and Clinical Medicine. .

Regarding meat eaters being more healthy, the study doesn't say that. The study covers one parameter of health and is a limited study. It's small and suggestive, not definitive. But shouldn't be dismissed out of hand simply because you don't agree with its conclusions.

Again, they didn't claim less healthy status for the vegetarians they were studying, only higher AGE loads, a marker.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2009 09:18PM by pborst.

rawpreston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Twenty percent older from age doesn't translate
> > into 20 percent greater AGE exposure.
>
> I didn't say that it did necessarily, but how do
> you know that to be true? BTW the word isn't
> 'exposure', it's 'presence'.
>

Because exposure to AGEs is what you eat over the time you eat it. A twenty percent difference between omnivores and vegetarians isn't the same thing as twenty percent of a lifetime. I chose the term exposure because that is what the throughput is from AGEs. Presence and risk are the result.
>
> > real question is what affect to fruits which
> are
> > high sugar such as bananas and grapes do to
> > circulating insulin and glucose relative to
> > someone who was eating a raw vegan diet with a
> > greater distribution of foods across nuts and
> > seeds, legumes, fruits, vegetables and sprouted
> > grains. I see a lower glycemic load in the
> latter
> > which when accompanied with a higher nutrient
> load
> > should be less risky in terms of both AGE
> > formation and cancer etiology.
>
> Now you're saying fruit causes cancer too? WOAH
> where's the proof?
>

I don't think I said fruit causes cancer, again something of an overstatement on your part. I said higher circulating levels of insulin and blood sugar are associated with higher cancer incidence. Regarding proof, already provided the Warburg cite in an earlier post.


>
> > I guess I still don't buy the false premise of
> > high fruit or high fat. Those aren't the only
> > choices. Certainly neither Dr. Furhman or
> most
> > CR advocates prescribe either one of those. I
> > wouldn't characterize the Hippocrates Health
> > Institute Diet or what Brian Clement proposes
> as
> > either high fat or high fruit.
>
> I don't know how much fat Furhman eats, but I know
> he's definitely not anti-fruit. I don't know
> exactly what Brian Clement eats, but I have heard
> the stuff served at Hippocrates can be very high
> fat. And I've heard that he eats cooked grains.
> We can't get enough calories from wheatgrass and
> sprouts. He certainly is anti-fruit.
>

Furhman is not anti-fruit, Clement is not anti-fruit, I'm not anti-fruit, questionning 80-10-10 is not anti-fruit. Both Clement and Fuhrman are not high fat or anti-fruit. Fuhrman recommends one ounce of nuts and seeds per day or less, hardly high fat. Clement in Living Foods for Optimal Health recommends very limited amounts of nuts and seeds. Also contrary to Bryan's post below, Clement sets an upper limit of cooked food to 25 percent. So raw is 75 percent or greater.
>
> > Regarding a fat percentage, I don't believe in
> one
> > percentage but rather a range. I don't think
> > there is anything magical about 10 percent fat
> > content, notwithstanding you don't have be high
> > fruit to be low fat. Rather, the mass of
> healthy
> > lipids and essential fatty acids can be low or
> > moderate but most likely not high.
>
> I just wish you'd post your fat% and a sample day.
> Until we know what % fat you're eating, no one
> knows exactly what you're recommending. Eating
> low glycemic fruits and high amounts of vegetables
> and greens are certainly perfectly in-line with
> 80/10/10, what we're really talking about here is
> FAT. How much of it are you eating?

I eat about a tablespoon of golden flax seeds and an ounce of almonds and/or walnuts per day. That's about it. How much fat a person can eat or needs though depends on a number of things. Are they trying to gain weight, how physically active are they, what health conditions are they treating. There nothing magical about a 10 percent fat percentage.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2009 09:20PM by pborst.

Everything I've ever read about AGE (advanced glycation endproducts) has to do with heat treated foods, that is, cooked foods. Articles about high fructose issues will usually have a disclaimer like the one below that does not include fruit as an issue.

From Men's Blood Pressure Increased By High-Sugar Diet

Quote

Fruit, which has just 4 g to 10 g of fructose per serving, also contains many beneficial substances including antioxidants, vitamin C, potassium and fiber that are believed to counter the effects of fructose alone. The main risk for excessive fructose consumption in the Western diet comes from sweetened drinks and foods rich in sugar or high fructose corn syrup, he said.

pboast,

That is 25% cooked food by volume. So if you eat 1 cup of tofu in a day, and 3 cups of lettuce that same day, what is the percentage of cooked versus raw when you compare calories? I leave this as an exercise to the reader.

pborst Wrote:

> I think you are overstating the uncertainty
> associated with comparisons. Protein intake was
> higher among the omnivores; fruit & honey ergo
> fructose content was higher among the vegetarians.

And I think you're overemphasising the relevance of this tiny study which used NO controls whatsoever that I could see, other than meat consumption, which is not relevant to us at all. Give me 100 people and I'm sure I could produce a vague correlation of anything you wanted me to in 19 vs 19.

> suggestive, not definitive. But shouldn't be
> dismissed out of hand simply because you don't
> agree with its conclusions.

I do not dismiss it out of hand, I do find it interesting, but I'm certainly not going to to let to outweigh the decades of evidence showing high fat intake leads to the negatives I listed above, as well as let it negate the fact that I simply feel amazing following 811.

> Again, they didn't claim less healthy status for
> the vegetarians they were studying, only higher
> AGE loads, a marker.

They did not claim healthy status for the AGE values, but yet you seem to be..

rawpreston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Regarding fruits not being high glycemic, I
> guess
> > relative to processed foods that's true. But
> the
> > real question is what affect to fruits which
> are
> > high sugar such as bananas and grapes do to
> > circulating insulin and glucose relative to
> > someone who was eating a raw vegan diet with a
> > greater distribution of foods across nuts and
> > seeds, legumes, fruits, vegetables and sprouted
> > grains. I see a lower glycemic load in the
> latter
> > which when accompanied with a higher nutrient
> load
> > should be less risky in terms of both AGE
> > formation and cancer etiology.
>
> Ok I think I understand things now. Your fear of
> AGEs has led you to fear excessive fruit, and my
> fear of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity,
> cognitive disorders, candida, and low energy
> (there are many studies for all of these) has led
> me to fear excessive fat. We can agree to
> disagree. I'm sure you've at least tried a low
> fat raw vegan plan for a month and concluded it
> wasn't for you.


Am fine with agreeing to disagree. The general dietary approach I'm trying is 80 percent plus raw with a mix of fruits (low glycemic index), greens, non-starchy vegetables, beans, sprouted grains, small amounts of nuts and seeds. Have lost 12 lbs in 3 weeks. Am pretty happy with it.

rawpreston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
>
> > I think you are overstating the uncertainty
> > associated with comparisons. Protein intake
> was
> > higher among the omnivores; fruit & honey ergo
> > fructose content was higher among the
> vegetarians.
>
> And I think you're overemphasising the relevance
> of this tiny study which used NO controls
> whatsoever that I could see, other than meat
> consumption, which is not relevant to us at all.
> Give me 100 people and I'm sure I could produce a
> vague correlation of anything you wanted me to in
> 19 vs 19.
>
> > suggestive, not definitive. But shouldn't be
> > dismissed out of hand simply because you don't
> > agree with its conclusions.
>
> I do not dismiss it out of hand, I do find it
> interesting, but I'm certainly not going to to let
> to outweigh the decades of evidence showing high
> fat intake leads to the negatives I listed above,
> as well as let it negate the fact that I simply
> feel amazing following 811.
>
> > Again, they didn't claim less healthy status
> for
> > the vegetarians they were studying, only higher
> > AGE loads, a marker.
>
> They did not claim healthy status for the AGE
> values, but yet you seem to be..

I don't think I ever said vegetarians were less healthy than omnivores Preston. I said that among raw vegans, I thought it was helpful to emphasize low glycemic index fruits such as berries, citrus and melons over higher glycemic index fruits such as mangos, bananas and grapes. That's all.

Bryan,

I don't know if the 25 percent is volume or weight. It's an upper bound in any case. I don't think Mr. Clement in arguing only 75 percent. My point was that the raw part of his diet wasn't simply a component.

Paul

> > pborst Wrote:

> Because exposure to AGEs is what you eat over the
> time you eat it. A twenty percent difference
> between omnivores and vegetarians isn't the same
> thing as twenty percent of a lifetime. I chose
> the term exposure because that is what the
> throughput is from AGEs. Presence and risk are
> the result.

They didn't measure exposure, they measured a snapshot, ie they measured their current value of AGE presence in their blood. I understand that exposure = presence X time. But you don't seem to think that someone's age could have any possible effect on their blood AGE values. I guess you're a scientist. Whichever.



> I don't think I said fruit causes cancer, again
> something of an overstatement on your part. I
> said higher circulating levels of insulin and
> blood sugar are associated with higher cancer
> incidence. Regarding proof, already provided the
> Warburg cite in an earlier post.

You're right you didn't say fruit causes cancer. But you were implying something. Now you're saying that consuming fruit on a lowfat diet leads to elevated blood sugar and insulin? Where's the proof for that?

By the way I do not eat or recommend honey, it's a fiberless concentrated sugar which is stolen from hard-working bees.


> Furhman is not anti-fruit, Clement is not
> anti-fruit, I'm not anti-fruit, questionning
> 80-10-10 is not anti-fruit. Both Clement and
> Fuhrman are not high fat or anti-fruit. Fuhrman
> recommends one ounce of nuts and seeds per day or
> less, hardly high fat. Clement in Living Foods
> for Optimal Health recommends very limited amounts
> of nuts and seeds. Also contrary to Bryan's post
> below, Clement sets an upper limit of cooked food
> to 25 percent. So raw is 75 percent or greater.

Furhman recommends one ounce of nuts and seeds per day or less? That's exactly what 80/10/10 recommends for a 2000 calorie diet.

I disagree Clement is very much anti-fruit, and I'm fairly sure he doesn't recommend "very limited" amounts of nuts and seeds. (Even if he did that would be more evidence for 80/10/10, what was the point again?) He thinks an apple today is 100x sweeter than an apple 100 years ago. He also makes outlandish claims like the least nutritious sprouts are 50x more nutritious than the most nutritious vegetable. C'mon.



> I eat about a tablespoon of golden flax seeds and
> an ounce of almonds and/or walnuts per day.
> That's about it. How much fat a person can eat or
> needs though depends on a number of things. Are
> they trying to gain weight, how physically active
> are they, what health conditions are they
> treating. There nothing magical about a 10
> percent fat percentage.

So you do eat very low fat, depending on calories that looks pretty close to 80/10/10. What are we arguing about then? You don't also use any oils or anything do you? Oils are empty calories which push out the very anti-cancer nutrients in fruits and vegetables you've been referring to. I know you don't eat over 10 pounds of vegetables per day, so you must be eating a fair amount of fruit, cooked starches, under a caloric deficit, or just lead a very low calorie sedentary life.

Nope, there's nothing magical about 10%. But 5-15% (10% average) just so happens to be all the fat we need, and not excessive thereby putting us at risk for conditions I listed above. Welcome to 80/10/10.

pborst Wrote:

> > They did not claim healthy status for the AGE
> > values, but yet you seem to be..
>
> I don't think I ever said vegetarians were less
> healthy than omnivores Preston. I said that among
> raw vegans, I thought it was helpful to emphasize
> low glycemic index fruits such as berries, citrus
> and melons over higher glycemic index fruits such
> as mangos, bananas and grapes. That's all.

No you certainly didn't say omnivores>vegetarians, but you seemed to strongly want to leverage that AGE study in earlier posts for an anti-fruit stance, thereby seemingly insinuating that the measured AGE values were justification/proof that fruit consumption = bad. Also the AGE study did not look at glycemic index, load, or blood glucose or insulin levels, which as I've said are made worse by excessive fat intake.

rawpreston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pborst Wrote:
>
> > > They did not claim healthy status for the AGE
> > > values, but yet you seem to be..
> >
> > I don't think I ever said vegetarians were less
> > healthy than omnivores Preston. I said that
> among
> > raw vegans, I thought it was helpful to
> emphasize
> > low glycemic index fruits such as berries,
> citrus
> > and melons over higher glycemic index fruits
> such
> > as mangos, bananas and grapes. That's all.
>
> No you certainly didn't say omnivores>vegetarians,
> but you seemed to strongly want to leverage that
> AGE study in earlier posts for an anti-fruit
> stance, thereby seemingly insinuating that the
> measured AGE values were justification/proof that
> fruit consumption = bad. Also the AGE study did
> not look at glycemic index, load, or blood glucose
> or insulin levels, which as I've said are made
> worse by excessive fat intake.

Again, not anti-fruit, low glycemic load fruit vs. high. High AGE values don't proof fruit consumption is bad, only that high sugar fruits need to be limited. I eat 4-6 piece of fruit per day myself, mostly berries and citrus. And yes, I know the study did not address glycemic index, load, I made that point with the Warburg site, the Nobel Prize winner who proved tumors have a special need for glucose that normal cells don't. Regarding welcome to 80-10-10, thanks if I decide to eat it, I will let you know. Most of my diet is low sugar fruits, nuts seeds, greens, sprouted legumes and grains. I do just fine. Promised Bryan I'd let this go. So, am going to recommend we agree to disagree and take it PMs if you want to discuss further. Be happy to. Have a great weekend!

It sounds like you're pretty new to raw. Congratulations on your weight loss. I'm sorry if I've been overly combative I just get passionate about fruit fears and misconceptions. I also see a lot of misconceptions about 80/10/10 in general and I just wish more people would read the book and give it a shot. The more people that do, the more subjects in the 'experiment'. The science of nutrition is still so underdeveloped, but I believe 811 is the raw path most rooted in science. For me it's not just about finding what works (heck the SAD was still working for me), since choosing a healthier path for myself I'm all about taking the quickest path to the best possible diet, and for me right now that is definitely 811, having tried the other ways.

People have to follow their own path though and reach their own conclusions.

Good luck in your journey

pborst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rawpreston Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > pborst Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Regarding fruits not being high glycemic, I
> > guess
> > > relative to processed foods that's true.
> But
> > the
> > > real question is what affect to fruits which
> > are
> > > high sugar such as bananas and grapes do to
> > > circulating insulin and glucose relative to
> > > someone who was eating a raw vegan diet with
> a
> > > greater distribution of foods across nuts and
> > > seeds, legumes, fruits, vegetables and
> sprouted
> > > grains. I see a lower glycemic load in the
> > latter
> > > which when accompanied with a higher nutrient
> > load
> > > should be less risky in terms of both AGE
> > > formation and cancer etiology.
> >
> > Ok I think I understand things now. Your fear
> of
> > AGEs has led you to fear excessive fruit, and
> my
> > fear of heart disease, cancer, diabetes,
> obesity,
> > cognitive disorders, candida, and low energy
> > (there are many studies for all of these) has
> led
> > me to fear excessive fat. We can agree to
> > disagree. I'm sure you've at least tried a low
> > fat raw vegan plan for a month and concluded it
> > wasn't for you.
>
>
> Am fine with agreeing to disagree. The general
> dietary approach I'm trying is 80 percent plus raw
> with a mix of fruits (low glycemic index), greens,
> non-starchy vegetables, beans, sprouted grains,
> small amounts of nuts and seeds. Have lost 12
> lbs in 3 weeks. Am pretty happy with it.


i didnt really think (i remember reading) that sprouted beans and grains were low G.I. or clean and healthy? i might be wrong though.
i think that the simpler one eats is better just plan fruits veggies and small amount of nuts.

its amazing how over about 3 days of changing still having a bit of cooked veg how much i dont even like the taste ne more!!!!

Yeah, again you're not going to die of malnutrition or food poisoning if you add beans and grains to your diet, but I wouldn't go out of my way to do it unless you really feel like them.

I personally supplement magnesium&calcium though since they're so rare in fruit, so that's how a person could find fault with my personal diet. My explanation is that the vast majority of us have our bones grown too long from lots of refined foods and dairy growing up, which pushed our bones too much to grow and they need constant maintainance now.

spekgirl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> i didnt really think (i remember reading) that
> sprouted beans and grains were low G.I. or clean
> and healthy? i might be wrong though.
> i think that the simpler one eats is better just
> plan fruits veggies and small amount of nuts.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2009 04:07AM by SuperInfinity.

I believe the calcium DRI is inflated to account for all the meat eaters acidifying their blood with all the animal protein, and since the blood must stay a very specific PH, the body pulls calcium from the bones to buffer it, and they urinate it out and it must be replaced or they get osteoporosis or weak bones. Certain African mothers and rural Chinese eat very little calcium or meat and they breastfeed and do fine, and don't show osteoporosis. So I don't worry about supplementing it, I usually get between 650mg and 900 from food whereas my DRI is 1000, I'm not concerned. Magnesium I seem to do ok with, always around about 175% there. Zinc is one I'm most concerned with on pure 811, but I believe it's inflated also to account for grain eaters which is pretty anti-zinc I believe. I have zinc supplements I have taken a couple times. I need to eat more pumpkin and sesame seeds I think for zinc, my overt fats are primarily avocado nowadays, and a few brazil nuts for their awesome selenium content. I wanna get my nutrients tested sometime.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2009 04:44AM by rawpreston.

I eat a lot of greens and fruit - and when I actually track on fitday, I get plenty of calcium and magnesium. Maybe try more greens?